Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Legality of occupation

While the UN like most international organizations regards an occupation of a territory as an unfavorable temporary situation, this is not an illegal state of affairs as long as the reasons for the occupation can be justified by the international law and the humanitarian international law is kept by the occupying country. The UN never said that the the Israeli occupation of the territories captured in 1967 was illegal in principle. It did determine that certain actions of Israel as the occupaying force were illegal. In fact, the 242 and 338 security council resolutions states that Israel's neighboring countries should recognize it and allow it to live within peaceful secure borders before Israel hands back these territories. DrorK (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note not all of the territories just some, and Israel already gave away most of them. --Saxophonemn (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The 242/338 resolutions are fulfilled and completed as far as Egypt and Jordan are concerned. Israel has already announced it was giving up the Gaza Strip (there is a debate about whether Israel is still considered an occupying force in the Strip, but it is very clear that Israel doesn't have any claims for this territory). So we are talking about the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Whether the 242 resolution means "all" or "some" territories, it refers to several fronts of the conflict. Currently, two of them - the Israeli-Syrian front and the Israeli-Palestinian front - are still an open case. DrorK (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are these people who happily carry on a discussion on questions of international law without even considering the opinions of international legal authorities? This is fantasyland talk - you are going well beyond even the official claims of Israel itself. According to the consensus of international legal scholars, the Gaza Strip, the entire West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Golan heights remain under occupation. The granting of a desultory form of "self-government" (as long as Palestinians don't vote in the wrong party) to a few Palestinian towns doesn't change that, nor does the redployment of forces from within Gaza to the borders, airspace, and waters of Gaza. Bottom line: Israel remains the occupying power in all three territories, Israel remains obligated under 242 to negotiate for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the mideast, based on termination of territorial claims and states of belligerency and the establishment of secure and mutually recognized borders. And anyway I'm not sure what you're actually proposing to be done with this article - talk pages are not just for having a fun time discussing your own political beliefs. <eleland/talkedits> 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the international organization is a group of dictatorships that pick on Israel. Your stance on the matter show little understanding of the UN, nor the resolutions it passes. It's generally agreed that the final status will not be the 1949 Armistice line, so Israel will get to keep some of the territory.--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your personal political opinions on the character and value of the United Nations is not relevant to this discussion, nor are your gratuitous personal attacks. It's generally agreed that adjustments will be made to the 1949 armistice lines, and this is the first time either of us has brought up that fact in the discussion - why are you suddenly changing your line of argument? <eleland/talkedits> 10:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are both expressing your personal views rather than sticking to the facts. I only referred to the term "illegal occupation" which is incorrect in the context of this article because the international law does recognize a legitimate occupation, and the Israeli occupation can be said to be legitimate according to UN resolutions 242 and 338. The appeal to negotiate in order to achieve peaceful durable solution is aimed at all parties, and there are demands from all parties, not only from Israel. By the way, deploying the state's forces on the border is the essential part of ending an occupation. Israel redeployed its forces on the Gaza Strip border and declared the dissolution of the martial law authorities for Gaza, hence it made the essential steps towards ending the occupation of this specific territory. It still controls the airspace and territorial waters of the Strip for various reasons (there were numerous attacks from Gaza on Israelis including invasions into Israeli soil), but the core of the occupation regime is gone. DrorK (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually occupation by definition requires taking over another country. So, according to the definition of occupation made by the Hague in the early 1900s, which was later adopted by the Geneva Convention, there is no occupation!!!--Saxophonemn (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are completely wrong. Any seizure of territory or part of territory by force might be regarded as occupation (of course there are other criteria to consider). In the case of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel has never treated them as part of its sovereign territory. These territories have been always subject to a special martial law. The case of eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is somewhat different, but even the Golan Heights were subject to martial law until 1981. DrorK (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Occupation requires a hostile nation taking over a place, Israel was in a defensive position when it took over the area. When Sharon used occupation by name he started to agree with the enemies of Israel that Israel occupied the territories which are disputed. --Saxophonemn (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this discussion is futile. What you say is not compatible neither with the international law nor with the Israeli law and certainly not with the actual situation. DrorK (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"ISRAEL DOES not fit the literal definition of an occupying force. The Hague Conventions and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949 do not appear to apply definitively to the West Bank. The West Bank has never been sovereign territory, and was won from a nation which held no legal claim to the area. After Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza, former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since the convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign which was ousted, and that it had been a legitimate sovereign.""- Ashley Perry, I read about this and had trouble finding the article. The actual situation is that Olmert was undergoing a land sale to save his group, anyone giving up land puts the country in danger! --Saxophonemn (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're citing an op-ed in a conservative Israeli newspaper. Um, so what? This is a question of international law; there is a clear consensus among expert sources in that field, not to mention actual legal opinions (Consequences of a Wall for starters - hell, even Israeli Supreme Court judgments) that Israel does, of course, fit the literal definition of an occupying force. Do you understand how WP:NPOV says we deal with conflicting claims in various sources? Do you accept it? <eleland/talkedits> 18:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely an occupation. However, there is definitely no basis whatsoever to call it an "illegal" occupation. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have arisen from Drork's explanation of this edit [1] , which removed the word "illegally" before "occupied". Since (so far as I know) nobody is arguing for or attempting to reinsert the word "illegally" or strike the word "occupied" in the sentence in question, the above debates are mostly unnecessary. If someone wants to suggest alternative wording for the sentence in question then there would be a basis for continuing. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above glosses over the unequivocal fact that the responsible courts and UN organs have already determined that Israel is a belligerent occupying power, and that its civilian settlements in Palestinian Territory are an illegal form of occupation. Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly stipulates that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". The High Contracting Parties issued a joint statement in 2001 which explained: 'The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof.'

In S/RES/465, 1 March 1980, The UN Security Council 'determined that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.'

In Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court noted that the government of Israel has in fact been holding Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation since 1967. That decision also held that international humanitarian laws are applicable in the occupied territory. In a separate May 2004 decision regarding IDF operations in Rafah, the court held that to the extent that military operations affect civilians, they are governed by Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice held that the Israeli government is acting in contravention of international law in many respects, particularly in regard to the establishment of settlements: 'The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.' The court also pointed out that all signatories to the Geneva Convention have an obligation to insure Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

A/RES/57/126, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly 'reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development.'

An official Israeli government investigation also concluded that Israeli state bodies had built many West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under ordinary Israeli administrative law, see the Wikipedia entry under Sasson Report for more details. In almost every case, the Commander of the belligerent occupation forces in Judea and Samaria had issued orders to expropriate the plots of land which were subsequently utilized for civilian settlements by employing 'military necessity' or 'security' as a pretext. That justification appears extremely doubtful when Israeli settlers refuse to turn over plots of land to their own occupation authorities: see for example: Jewish Residents Prevent Expulsion by IDF. harlan (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you conclude that illegal activities conducted during an occupation makes the occupation illegal? This is not an empty question - if an illegal activity takes place during the occupation of Afghanistan, it would not seem that it would make the occupation of Afghanistan illegal. 92.41.220.51 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not an empty question but an odd one; has anybody concluded that? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that UN GA resolutions are non binding opinion pieces, the GA contains the alliance of non aligned states a majority against Israel! It's like finding a White Power rally declaring Jews to be scum, nothing remarkable. Additionally Israel doesn't recognize the ICJ for its unfair treatment, and it's logistical conflict of impartiality. Stating the occupation is illegal requires the state that was occupied to complain that they're being occupied, oh wait, not possible. The Geneva convention refers to actions that were post WW2 population expulsions, not settlements. Seriously though what should Israel have done revert to a border that worked so well before. UN SC Res 465 never actually states illegality, the context of a resolution is very important. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule you should only add strike through mark-up to your own posts. The Security Council resolution cited a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War which is categorized as one of the grave breaches. See How "grave breaches" are defined in the Geneva Conventions, Geneva Convention 4 Article 147: 'extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.' Grave breaches are usually defined as war crimes by the high contracting parties, including the United States. See for example the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Unlike treaty law, customary international law is not written. Although customs of a longstanding nature have been codified by treaties. To prove that a certain rule is customary one has to show that it is reflected in state practice and that there exists a conviction in the international community that such practice is required as a matter of law. In this context, "practice" relates to official state practice and therefore includes formal statements by states. A contrary practice by some states is possible because if this contrary practice is condemned by other states or denied by the government itself the original rule is actually confirmed. This article contains numerous examples of Special pleading on Israel's behalf, which are completely irrelevant in deciding matters pertaining to customary international law. see: ICRC Customary international humanitarian law An example of one such statement is: 'The current and future political status of the territories is highly controversial. Specific issues include the legality of Israeli policies allegedly encouraging settlement, whether it is legitimate for Israel to annex portions of the territories, whether Israel is legally an occupying power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and whether an independent Arab state will be created in the territories.'

The notion that General Assembly resolutions are merely opinion pieces is completely erroneous. The International Courts (the ICJ and ICC) and international organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross view them as a form of evidence regarding consistent state practice, or opinio juris. Taken together with the joint statement of the high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, there is very strong evidence of the state of law regarding the illegality of the Israeli settlements under the terms of the treaties and in customary law. In 1950, the International Law Commission listed the following sources as forms of evidence of customary international law: treaties, decisions of national and international courts, national legislation, opinions of national legal advisors, diplomatic correspondence, and practice of international organizations. see Evidence of State practice

Here are some examples from each catagory:

• The High Contracting Parties to the treaty issued a joint declaration which held the settlements to be illegal
• The ICJ held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal.
• The Israeli High Court has ruled that Judea and Samaria are being held in belligerent occupation and that international humanitarian laws are applicable in the occupied territory.
• Despite the fact that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions states 'the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever', a few US administrations have concluded that the protections do not apply to certain conflicts or individuals. Nonetheless, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury v Madison. The US Supreme Court held that Common Article Three prohibitions and protections did apply in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S.,(2006), despite the administration's special pleadings.
• The US Government enacted national legislation which reduced loan guarantees in opposition to the Israeli settlements. see U.S. Cutting Loan Guarantees To Oppose Israeli Settlements
• Under EU customs legislation, products originating in Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories are not entitled to the same special tariffs eligible to goods originating in Israel. see The Middle East and North Africa 2004, page 37
• In 1967 the Israeli Foreign Ministry Legal Counsel Theodor Meron rendered an opinion on civilian settlements for then Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. He stated: "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." see The Etzion illusion, Ha'aretz and Israelis Were Warned On Illegality of Settlements in 1967, The Independent.
• The government of Israel Sasson Report held that scores of settlements are illegal under Israel's national laws.
• The resolutions of the organs of the United Nations are evidence of practice of international organizations.
• Protests submitted by the member states and regional intergovernmental organizations such as the Arab League to the UN are examples of diplomatic correspondence.
• The World Bank (an intergovernmental organization) concluded that the IDF was enhancing the free movement of settlers and the physical and economic expansion of the settlements at the expense of the Palestinian population. see Investing in Palestinian Economic Reform and Development.

The General Assembly is obligated to initiate studies and to make recommendations that encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification, in accordance with article 13 of the UN Charter. Acting in that agreed-upon treaty capacity, the General Assembly affirmed the principles of international law that were recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and directed that they should be codified, see General Assembly Resolution 95 (I), 11 December 1946. Those principles were subsequently adopted by a subordinate organ, the International Law Commission of the United Nations, and incorporated by independent international agreement in the Geneva Conventions. Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to punish individuals who commit genocide and other serious international crimes, it was also the United Nations General Assembly that convened the diplomatic conference in Rome to finalize and adopt the convention on the establishment of an international criminal court. The General Assembly also has a subordinate organ which investigates possible war crimes. see: Israeli attack on Beit Hanoun a possible war crime – head of UN-backed probe and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

International humanitarian organizations have called upon all parties engaged in the armed conflict in the Palestinian territories to abide by the terms of customary international humanitarian law. see for example: Hezbollah Rockets Targeted Civilians in 2006 War, Attacks on Northern Israel Violated Laws of War and Gaza: Armed Palestinian Groups Commit Grave Crimes. Israel is one of the few states which has already exercised authority under the principle of Universal jurisdiction for crimes committed prior to its statehood. When violations of the Geneva Conventions occur, the Israeli courts, or one of the other high contracting parties can prosecute the perpetrators. Those prosecutions don't necessarily depend upon a complaint from the Palestinian State. See for example: Dichter cancels U.K. trip over fears of 'war crimes' arrest, Israeli General Doron Almog 'avoids UK arrest', Olmert indicted as deputy (Mofaz) is accused of war crimes.

Article 35 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice permits non-member states to participate in cases. Several countries, including Costa Rica have entered into normal relations with the State of Palestine. The Costa Rican Penal Code (Article 7) states that national courts, independently of the place of the event and the nationality of the person presumed responsible, have jurisdiction to judge according to national law the crime of genocide and any crimes against human rights according to treaties accepted by Costa Rica or by its Penal Code. see Universal Jurisdiction and Absence of Immunity for Crimes Against Humanity. and Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’. harlan (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization and UN terminology

Regarding this sentence in the Name section of the article:

Since 1967, the territories have been called "occupied Palestinian territories" by most members of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

When the subject is terminology currently used by the United Nations — the text actually says "most members of the United Nations", but who has done a survey? — there is no question that all three words in Occupied Palestinian Territories are in fact capitalized. It is easy to find reams of UN documents where it is written that way. Here's a typical General Assembly resolution: [2]. The term Occupied Palestinian Territories, with each word capitalized, also appears not just in resolutions but in numerous UN agency reports, studies, and reference materials. It also appears that way in the ICJ ruling on the West Bank separation barrier. By the way, "since 1967" is not correct. So far as I know, the term Occuipied Palestinian Territories (now often abbreviated as OPT) first appears in UN documents in the mid-1980s. Before that you generally see references to "occupied Arab territories" (which of course referred to a larger area), as in this example: [3]. Absent a published study on the question, we ought not to attempt to pinpoint the exact time the term OPT came into widespread use. I think it's best to simply say what the current terminology is.

On this subject, the language the "Palestinian" label having gained wide use since the 1970s, in a later (and older) paragraph in the same section, is somewhat derogatory and smacks of editorializing. I removed the whole paragraph containing it, because there is now a preceding statement in the article that the UN uses the term OPT, because attempting to trace the history of the term is original research (as I have said), and because the implication in the the final statement that Resolution 181 used the description "Judea and Samaria" to mean the same entity that "Palestinian Territories" refers to today is simply false. The words Judea and Samaria do appear in that resolution, but they do not refer to the areas now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a whole. Of course, before the 1948 war, the present Gaza and West Bank boundaries had no meaning; the closest thing at that time to what is now called the Palestinian Territories was the area allocated to the Arab state in the partition plan for Palestine. Resolution 181 does not refer to that area as "Judea and Samaria", it refers to it as "the Arab State". Sanguinalis (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The neighboring Arab States interfered in the establishment of an Arab State in Palestine. On 30 November 1947, the Palestine Post carried an article with the headline 'Arab States Prepare To Fight Abdullah' which explained that the other Arab States would not accept Transjordan taking over the new Arab state in Palestine by itself, and that they were preparing to fight.

After the UN Security Council refused to impose the partition plan by force, the representatives of the Jewish Agency undertook discussions with Transjordan and the US State Department regarding financial assistance, population exchanges, and the annexation - by Transjordan - of the proposed Arab state in Palestine. It was suggested that the problem of Jerusalem could also be resolved by establishing a condominium of Transjordan and the Jewish State. The Jewish Agency resisted efforts to establish a truce in hopes that 'a deal could be worked out between King Abdullah and the Jewish Agency whereby the King would take over the Arab portion of Palestine and leave the Jews in possession of their state in the remainder of that country.' see Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 (1948), page 973 and Minutes from meeting of Shertok and Epstein with Secretary Marshall, Lovett, and Rusk, 8 May 1948, Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Central Zionist Archives, doc. 483, pp. 757-76. For discussion of separate State Department talks with Rabbi Silver see US/A/C.1/685, Memorandum by Mr. John E. Horner, SECRET, NEW YORK, May 4, 1948, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 pages 898-901

Presidential Advisor Clark Clifford observed that Security Council authorization for the use of force to impose the partition plan wasn't needed, since 'the actual partition of Palestine had already taken place "without the use of outside force".' see Memorandum of Conversation, by Secretary of State, May 12, 1948, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 (1948), pages 972-976.

The switch to the 'Palestinian' label happened in the 1970s. After the events of Black September in Jordan, the Arab League finally affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and called on all the Arab states (including Jordan) to undertake to defend Palestinian national unity and not to interfere in their internal affairs. The Arab League also 'affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.' In practical terms that meant the Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria could no longer act as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, or their territory. see PLO sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people harlan (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting background, and the references to source material are certainly welcome. Do you have a proposal for improving the article? Sanguinalis (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the article suggests that Egypt and Jordan have dropped their territorial claims without mentioning the fact that they, and the Arab League, have finally accepted the superior claim of the Palestinians to their own territory.

The argument that the territory is disputed because it was once occupied by Jordan or somehow subject to conquest under the terms of the terminated League of Nations Mandate is irrelevant and self-serving. Israel and the great powers submitted the question of future government of Palestine to the General Assembly for a determination under article 10 of the Charter. The United Nations was the Zionist Organization's chosen forum:

"In proposing the motion, Mr. Ben Gurion intimated that the words "Jewish State" should be substituted for 'Commonwealth". He is also said to have made it clear that acceptance of the "Biltmore programme" was not to be taken as a definition of ultimate Zionist aims. A new world order, he said, was about to be established and the Jewish problem would once again be before an international forum. The resolutions represented immediate aims for submission to that forum, as the demands of the Jewish people." see Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1942. The Near East and Africa Volume IV, page Page 551

see this from 1940:

"Dr. Weizmann (President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency) expressed the view that the most advantageous settlement of the Palestine question in his opinion would be the division of the country into Jewish and Arab cantons with wide powers of autonomy and the federation of Palestine and Trans-Jordan into one state under continued British supervision for some time to come. As Jewish cantons he would include Galilee (northern Palestine) and the coastal region of Palestine, and as Arab cantons the hill country and western Palestine, together with Trans-Jordan." note that the Negev or southern Palestine were left out of the cantonization plan for subsequent disposition. Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1940. The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa Volume III, page 837

and this from 1946:

In other words, Mr. Epstein continued, the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Morrison-Grady proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other. This would inevitably result if the Morrison-Grady plan were to be considered first. Mr. Wilson inquired whether it would be correct to say that the Agency Executive had now accepted partition as the solution for Palestine which it favored. Mr. Epstein replied in the affirmative, pointing out that the decision to do so had been taken with only one member of the Executive voting against, and with three members abstaining. Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII, page 693.

As you can see from the earlier post, the Jewish Agency and the Western Powers had no objections to an invasion of the proposed Arab state by Transjordan. They actually promoted one by suggesting a Palestinian population transfer with compensation payments payable to the Emir. In any event, the Jewish Agency had already been making regular payments to Abdullah under the guise of purchasing unused lease options in Transjordan. While they publicly complained that 'Israel' had been invaded, they and the Anglo-British alliance privately encouraged Abdullah to occupy and annex the territory of the proposed Palestinian state. They also secretly proposed the establishment of a Jewish-Arab condominium in Jerusalem which violated both the content and intent of the UN Plan of Partition. By 1966, US Presidential advisor Walt Rostow was complaining that the US had already spent $500 million to shore up Jordan as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border and vis-a-vis Syria and Iraq. see FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1964-1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964-67,(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL 27 ARAB-ISR)

In addition to the FRUS material, these sources provide additional confirmation: 'The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities', By Simha Flapan, Pantheon Books, 1987 ISBN 039455888X, 'Jewish-Transjordanian Relations 1921-1948: Alliance of Bars Sinister', by Yoav Gelber, Routledge, 1997, ISBN 071464675X, 'Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine', by Avi Shlaim, Columbia Univ Press, 1988, ISBN 0231068387, and 'Letters to Paula and the Children', by David Ben Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, ISBN 0853031398.

US and Israeli politicians, including the US President and US presidential candidates, routinely use Jordan as a cats paw in their attempts to preclude Palestinian self-determination, or the application of international law. Without so much as a Palestinian plebiscite, they demand a union with Jordan. Some go so far as to claim that a divided Jerusalem, or a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river, is simply unthinkable. see for example Senator Brownback agrees: No to a Palestinian state, Mike Huckabee: A divided Jerusalem is 'unimaginable', Gov. Mike Huckabee: Create Palestinian State Outside of Israel, and Bush approved plot to oust Hamas. harlan (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar of the first paragraph

Palestinian territories are a proper adjective describing a plural noun. Thus the subject verb agreement of a subject noun which is a plural has to have a properly conjugated verb. Somehow no one seems to see the problem. (oops)--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. We had this discussion a few weeks ago. The lead refers to the term "Palestinian territories", which is a singular. It is a designation. If we were talking about the territories, as such, they would certainly be a plural. I know it's confusing, but it was even worse before, and seemed to have been resolved. By the way, welcome back. (Please sign your comment). Hertz1888 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The only parallel I see is in United States, but that was out of a symbol of unity post the Civil War. After surviving a with hunt I'm back, BH!!--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence should not be about a term in the first place. It should just describe what the Palestinian Territories are. That would avoid all grammatical problems. I propose the following replacement: "The Palestinian Territories are comprised of two discontiguous regions, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, whose final status has yet to be determined, pending agreement between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority." Sanguinalis (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, as long as we stop with "determined". The last clause assumes too much and may be incorrect. By all means let's dodge the grammatical problems, but without creating new issues. The rest of the present lead sentence's content (the portion about the Mandate and other history) of course must stay, perhaps least awkwardly in a second sentence. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whew, thanks because that first line was killing my nerves. However I wish the page was moved to disputed territories because this creates a POV that the territories are Palestinian, but they represent a bulk of the actual Jewish homeland.--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The new opener is up, I hope you all like it.--Saxophonemn (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your change was not at all what was discussed here. It was grammatically incorrect, so I reverted it. The sentence is correct as it is: [The expression] "Palestinian territories" is one of a number of designations... — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Hertz1888's suggestion to stop with "determined". Somehow we do need to convey the fact though that the PTs do not currently constitute a state. As to Saxophonemn's proposed changes, I think both of them (renaming the article, and the lead sentence) go too far in the direction of supporting a fringe view. Actually the current version of the article still has this problem. The fact is there is an overwhelming worldwide consensus that the territories are called the Palestinian Territories. The term is used in all the world's major newspapers, even conservative ones like the Wall Street Journal. The U.S. State Department uses the term routinely (note the capitalization here). To see the problem with making the lead about a term instead of the thing, imagine the lead for Israel reading "Israel is a designation, for many, of those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which were captured by Jewish forces in the 1948 Palestine war". Sanguinalis (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik, they is coming to take you away, is good English. Now seriously everything I learned in English tells me how this works. Would you back up your assertion with this wonderful rule in Grammar that I missed. Your constructive criticism's authority is lacking both authority or a convincing argument. It's more so bullying if anything else. --Saxophonemn (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn, what are you talking about? Who do you think is being bullyed, and by whom? Sanguinalis (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik is insistent that he's right and reverted a change made upon our consensus. His view is backed up by nothing.--Saxophonemn (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I explained why I reverted you. Your sentence was grammatically incorrect.

Second, despite what you wrote above, your edit did not represent the proposal that was being discussed.

Finally, the Talk page is not a forum for theories of national superiority. Please refactor your comment. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn, I urge you to reread this topic from the beginning. Malik is right, the change you made was never discussed, and no one on this talk page has agreed to it. There certainly wasn't a consensus for it. Sanguinalis (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you all to read as well, a consensus was made that is was incorrect, no consensus was officially made a proposed suggestion was, and the grammar was correct in the correction. Yet, this ensues with assertions.

The Palestinian territories are a designation, of many, for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and occupied by Jordan and by Egypt in the late 1940s, and captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

The sentence structure: definitive article-proper adjective - subject (plural) - linking verb - (of many) is an explanative (forgot the exact grammatical device/name) - and a string of prepositional phrases - that were originally in the sentence.

The sentence change fixed the major grammatical error of the sentence, the rest was simply just poor style. (Forgot to sign)--Saxophonemn (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread the discussion starting from the heading Grammer of the first paragraph on this talk page. Malik Shabazz and Hertz1888 have each stated clearly that they believe is is correct. I have taken the position that the lead should not be about a term in the first place (and got some support from Hertz1888). That accounts for everyone who has participated in this topic besides yourself. I can't find anywhere on this talk page where a consensus was made that is is incorrect. If you believe a consensus was made somewhere else, please indicate exactly where and when. Sanguinalis (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I reread, for the the term to be even a consideration as a singular would require territories to be capitalized too. However it's not an entity it describes territories. The proposal by Sanguinalis was good and should be adopted, I didn't see it get inserted though. --Saxophonemn (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the lead in accordance with the proposal. I think this avoids all grammatical problems. I think we can all agree the original wording was awkward, regardless of the grammar. Thanks for the feedback. Sanguinalis (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

We removed the bit where it said 'Perhaps' east Jerusalem is occupied territory. This is ridiculous. east Jerusalem is land not inlcuded in 1948 or 1949 borders. It was taken after the 1967 war and is occupied territory. Israel calls it it's capital, but no nation reconizes it because it is disputed. This article is riddled with bias and presentation of misleading facts, someone with more patience should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.104.220 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not true at all. Jerusalem was founded circa 1000 BCE by King David. The notable places in East Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount (Harm al-Sharif), were also built by Jews, approximately 1600 years BEFORE the founding of Islam. This is well known and documented. After the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan completely occupied East Jerusalem, in violation of international law. East Jerusalem was liberated by Israel in 1967. Proteus7 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Well known and documented", I don't think so. King David did not found the city, he merely captured it in 1000BCE. By then, it had been there for at least 900 years. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

King David purchased a threshing floor from Araunah. Threshing floors were notable holy places connected to the fertility cults long before the advent of Judaism. The prophets of Israel spoke about the manner of paying the cult prostitutes by giving them corn on the threshing floor for their hire, see Hoshea 9:1 (after Gen. Rabbah 57:4).

As for the notion that Jews built Harm al-Sharif, it is very well documented that:

• King Solomon employed skilled Phoenicians and Canaanites to build the Temple: "the matter of the tax levy which king Solomon raised; to build the Temple of the Lord, and his own house and the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer."... ..."All the remaining people of the Amorites, Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel. (Even) Their children who remained after them, in the land, whom the Children of Israel were unable to annihilate, of them did Solomon raise a levy of forced labor until this day." see Rashi's Commentary on Melachim I (1 Kings), Chapter 9, 15-21.
• Cyrus, who was of the sons of Japheth, built the Second Temple and the Divine Presence never rested on it. see Yoma, folio 9b, and 10a or Rashi's commentary on Genesis 9:27.
• King Herod completely rebuilt the Temple. Both of his parents were Arabs (Antipater was Idumean and Cyprus was Nabatean). He was completely abhorrent to the pious Jews. see his entry at the Jewish Encyclopedia harlan (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Harlan's material

I note Malik has removed Harlan's material. I'm diffident about contesting any judgement he makes. I find that material very usual as a basis for examining many I/P issues. Perhaps the sensible thing for Harlan to do is to take a leaf out of Huldra's book = User:Huldra/Sources. She has created a subpage for references to online sources and downloadable books on I/P history. If Harlan does the same, those who are following his close work on key sources can bookmark it, and keep updated. There's a huge indigestibly garbled blob of highly technical material in the Israeli Settlements article. Harlan at least has kept this to a talk page, as a reference to editors.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Malik may not have understood that this article already discusses these very topics and that its NPOV has been disputed. These are all easily verified examples of "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - mostly by the responsible governmental or intergovernmental entities themselves. They are legal and historical references that I suggest we incorporate into the article in an unbiased fashion. harlan (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's all clearly relevant to the page. But doesn't arouse much discussion (as one would expect in I/P articles!). These are talk pages, and no one is discussing the stuff. That is whay I suggest the material be on a subpage linked to this one, where it can be worked over without distraction, to eventually be harvested (it would avoid the problem of being lost if the talk page is archived, for example). Just a thought. Keep up the good work Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was too quick to delete material that's pertinent to improving the article. It looked WP:SOAPBOXy to me. Again, sorry. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually put material on the talk page together with some references before I make any major changes to an article, then I wait a while for comments, criticism, and suggestions. In this particular case, the article itself has been tagged for lack of references or citations, so I've tried to include a lot of relevant examples in my posts. harlan (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Occupied Palestinian Territories or Palestinian Territories?

I would like to know why the OPT is referred to as PT. This is not only clearly wrong, but actually misleads the public --Surfer273 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article discusses the fact that the name of the Palestinian Territories is contested. In accordance with Wikipedia's policy concerning neutral point of view, the article should start with a neutral name that favors no side in the dispute. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the territories are occupied isn't a matter that is subject to any dispute. The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ruled that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967, and that Hague IV and the international humanitarian law norms contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable. see Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel Decisions of the High Court are binding on the various administration ministries.

In many instances the contents of these "Disputed vs. Occupied" sections in Wikipedia articles don't represent the policies of the State of Israel, and raise nonsensical objections that have no factual or legal merit. Some of them have been {{fact}}and {{NPOV}} tagged since 2007. The editors have successfully turned encyclopedia articles into forums for WP:Fringe diatribes.

The claim that calling the territories 'occupied' somehow favors one side or another is ludicrous. In many cases the same 'Disputed' section explains that 'the 1949 armistice lines' are no longer valid. An armistice agreement is, in part, an international legal instrument that changes a state of 'belligerent occupation' to a state of 'armistice occupation' pending the conclusion of a final negotiated peace agreement. If the armistice agreement is no longer valid, and no peace treaty has been concluded, then the Israeli High Court is correct in ruling that the Israeli armed forces present in the zones subject to the armistice occupation agreement must observe the Hague IV articles applicable to a belligerent occupation.

An example of a post-war change from belligerent occupation to armistice occupation and the effect on state sovereignty is provided by the case involving the Anglo-American occupation of the Free Territory of Trieste in International Law Reports, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases 1949, Hersh Lauterpacht, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521463610, starting at page 64. harlan (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a good argument can be made that Occupied Palestinian Territories is the neutral name. After all, that is what the United Nations calls it. However, I think Palestinian Territories is fine too. It is the term which appears most frequently in news articles (outside Israel). It is also used by diplomats (including the US state department), and appears in many guide books (e.g., Lonely Planet). Realistically, any attempt to rename the article to OPT is likely to lead to an edit war. If you search the archives of this talk page, you will find there was a movement a couple years back to rename the article by pro-Israel editors who were opposed even to the PT title. I think we should leave the title as it is. I'd rather put energy into fixing the serious distortions in the article itself. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN terminology is not neutral, but reflects the political opinion of the majority of its member countries. In the eyes of the UN there is no country called "The Republic of China" (i.e. Taiwan), nor are there countries called The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Somaliland. We all know that these countries exist in real life. I am bringing these examples to indicate that relying on the UN terminology is not a good idea when looking for the best NPOV term. DrorK (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

simple:Talk:Palestinian territories

Even if there is disagreement about part of the territories, Gaza is certainly not occupied. Furthermore, the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality guide lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.244.75 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit

Just changed 'US president George W Bush' to 'Former US President George W Bush' and edited the tense of the sentence accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynardo7 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be sufficient to note such a change in the edit summary. No one should find it controversial. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article needs info on how george bush supported 2 state solution (eastern jerusalem is a must if there is to be peace) but in reality he didnt care for anything except himself, so blind & ignorant but worse are those who follow!

Is East Jeruselem "Occupied Palestinian Territory"?

The article is a bit confused. Am I right in understanding that East Jerusalem is considered "Occupied Palestinian Territory" by the United Nations, and all its members excluding Israel, that claims to have annexed it? The lede needs clarifying on this point.93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added the following text to the first section of the lede - "In 1980 Israel claimed to annex East Jerusalem from the West Bank, but United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared this null and void and required that it be rescinded forthwith, while affirming that it was a violation of international law".93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Attempts to Delink Palestinian Territory from Palestine

Wikipedia:List of country categories says "This is a list of categories providing topic coverage on contemporary countries, states and dependencies." It correctly lists Palestinian Territories - State of Palestine.

In the US the term "Country" is used for any political entity known as a nation. see 19 C.F.R. PART 134.1 Definitions The US granted a request from the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a Country in view of developments including the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. In a letter dated January 13, 1997, the Department of State advised the other agencies of the Executive branch that it considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. see DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Customs Service, T.D. 97–16, Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza The Treasury Department subsequently stated that the country of origin markings of goods from the West Bank and Gaza shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning.

The US Library of Congress (LOC) lists the Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza as a Nation. The information is organized under headings for Constitution, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, Legal Guides, and General Sources. The LOC's Multinational Legal Guides lists the jurisdiction as "Palestine". The Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (114 states) also consider the Palestinian Territories to be occupied territory. UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/63/201 was adopted by 164 votes to 8, with 5 abstentions. It declared the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 140 UN member states acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine in resolution 43/177, and 103 states have subsequently recognized the occupied area as the "State of Palestine". The Palestinian Authority submitted documents it said proved Palestine was a legal state to the ICC Prosecutor. They provided proof that 67 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe had signed bilateral agreements with the State of Palestine.

The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, is competent to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions. See Basic Law: The Judiciary. The High Court has ruled that: "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation." cited at "B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw, 1. Belligerent Occupation, 14." in 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel The Knesset could theoretically overrule the court, but it has not done that in the case of the West Bank, aka the administrative districts of Judea and Samaria.

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has established .ps as the top-level country-code for "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". The ISO Maintenance Agency lists the country name and country elements as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", Alpha-2 code "PS", Alpha-3 code PSE, numeric code 275. The International Olympic Commission and FIFA formulate their own codes and names that differ from the ISO codes in many cases. The IOC has recognized the National Olympic Committee of "Palestine", Country Code "PSE", since 1996. The FIFA Integration Guidelines, Country and Confederation codes, lists "Palestine" and "PLE". Not allowing the majority or most significant published view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors is a classic violation of basic NPOV policy. harlan (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Harlan, you have done a tremendous amount of excellent research for this article. If you are suggesting that this article be renamed Palestine, though, I disagree. However, I think something that can be done to address the concerns you are bringing up now, is to make a country box for this article. The Gaza Strip article has a country box, but that's not right. It is the West Bank and Gaza together that make up the geopolitical entity. The US Customs document you found is particularly good support for this. We should also point out, in the introduction of this article, that Israel and the PA agreed in the Oslo accords that the West Bank and Gaza constitute a single territory. Of course the Israeli position that the Palestinian Territories do not have definite borders will have to be represented as well. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the article be renamed. I'm just pointing out why I reverted an edit and explaining why other editors should not delink the article about the country of Palestine from the article about the region of Palestine (in which it is situated). Dozens of countries recognize the Palestinian territory as the State of Palestine. That article was just restored. The article Proposals for a Palestinian State is really just an article about the final settlement between the two states. harlan (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

In regard to the section about "Greater Israel" The phrase "some Zionists" are Weasel Words. Either quote specific people, or eliminate this sentence completely. Vague attributions create a mistaken impression about how widespread an idea is accepted.

Mftcellist (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) mftcellist

As opposed to the preceding sentence, about "Many Arab and Islamic leaders, including some Palestinians"? <rolling my eyes> — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper Noun =

Should it not be Palestinian Territories? Territories is part of a proper noun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.9.216 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge (Outline of Palestine)

There are currently several articles, some of which are in bad shape, that merely reiterate the same information over and over again. They even contradict one another to some extent. We have an article about Palestine as a geographical region (fair enough), we have an article called Palestinian Territories, another one called Outline of Palestine which simply reiterates the same information in other words (it doesn't mention Israel, so it is not really different from the Palestinian Territories article). Then we have Proposals for a Palestinian state, which reiterate a lot of information already given here and in other articles, and we have a strange article called State of Palestine which includes a lot of false information based on a very broad interpretation of a certain user to a few sources. So, instead of spreading the information on so many articles, and having false and/or contradicting information on some of them, why won't we have one or two reasonably written articles? And by the way, the article about the State of Israel and the Land of Israel also include information about this very region, so we actually have at least six overlapping articles (maybe more). I know some bigger countries in Africa that didn't gain so much Wikipedian honor. DrorK (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What you suggesting we do? What's to be merged with what? Tiamut^talk 13:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now. You want to merge Outline of Palestine into this article. In that case:

• Oppose Outlines are organized lists. An AfD on Outline of Palestine determined it was appropriate to have an organized list on that subject. Palestinian territories is not a synonym for Palestine or State of Palestine. If they were, it would be those articles that you should propose for merger and not the Outline of article. Tiamut^talk 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely Oppose per Tiamut. I see your point about the numerous articles and maybe some should be merged, but Outline of Palestine should remain. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best candidate for deletion would be Proposals for a Palestinian state which isn't really an encyclopedic topic as it is and which ignores that there is a State of Palestine (though the latter lacks full independence and its claimed territories remain undefined). Tiamut^talk 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to fantasy land, eh? Everybody's talking about the need to establish a state, but in the magical world of badly written wiki articles - it already exists... okedem (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mock me Okedem. Most of the sources in the article State of Palestine, all of which are WP:RS, express the idea that the Palestinian state has been declared and recognized but has yet to be fully implemented. Its a work in progress. This is not a difficult concept to understand. As the latest PA statement reads: ""We call upon all our people to work together on the basis of full partnership in the process of completing and building the institutions of a free, democratic and stable state of Palestine." Something can exist but not be fully implemented. Simple really. Tiamut^talk 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Something can be declared, and even recognized, and yet not exist. No Palestinian State exists today, regardless of how much you (or I, for that matter) may want it to. Now there exists a concept, an idea, with quite wide support, by the name of "State of Palestine", yet it is most clearly not a state in the normal sense of the word, which is why everyone (including Arab leaders, even Palestinian leaders) speak of the need to establish a Palestinian State. okedem (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it really depends on how you define "exists". To me, the declaration of a State of Palestine and its recognition means that it exists, at least as a concept, and arguably as something more, given that there is Palestinian self-government in parts of Palestine. Those calling for its establishment are really asking for the state that has been declared and recognized to be allowed to be implemented without obstruction. In any case, this discussion is more relevant to the page on the State of Palestine and has little to do with this merger discussion. So perhaps it is better to take it up there, with sources you would like to see incorporated into the article? Tiamut^talk 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have explained in details why the article "State of Palestine" is poorly written and misleading. The person who wrote it gave a very broad interpretation to statements taken out of context. Of course all statements are sourced, but most of them are either exceptional interpretations or taken out of context. This article could be a nice thesis for a beginner class of Political Science, but it is not a WP article. Now, back to the point, I fail to see the purpose of the article "Outline of Palestine" - what sort of information does it suppose to convey? In fact, what's the meaning of its title? Do we also have an article "Outline of Asia Minor"? or "Outline of the British Isles"? The region known as Palestine or Land of Israel is indeed an interesting place with a lot of historical and political background, but does a region of ~27,000 sq km and a population of some 11 million people deserve six or seven articles, most of which reiterate the same information over and over again? DrorK (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The nominator seems unaware of the purpose of the Outline series of articles, which includes Outline of Israel. I refer the nom to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge and Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then the article should be called "Outline of the Palestinian Territories" or "Outline of the Palestinian National Authority" and it should not include information relevant to Israel. Right now the articles seems as if the Palestinian Authority is a sovereign state that covers the Israeli territory too. That's an absurd. DrorK (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We have articles entitled Outline of Abkhazia, Outline of Somaliland, and Outline of Taiwan. These are political entities that enjoy limited recognition as states, as does the State of Palestine. The Palestinian territories is not the name of the state of Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority is a temporary administrative body (not a geographical area or national home). You are free to suggest renaming at the Outline of Palestine page, but I would note that the article has surived an AfD under its present name because even states with limited recognition do deserve to have organized lists outlining what they are about. Tiamut^talk 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan and Abkhazia are de facto states that do not enjoy full international recognition. Palestine is the other way around - it is a proclaimed state that gained some recognition, but has no defined territory nor permanent population (these criteria appear in the Montevideo Convention and are generally accepted for most purposes). The PA has some control over certain territories according to the Oslo Accords. These territories are officially called "The Palestinian Authority Territories" or in short "The Palestinian Territories". Now, if we want to have an outline article about these territories, that's fine, but it should include information only about these territories (not about Israel, for example), and it cannot present them as an independent state. That would be giving false information to the reader (this is not a political issue - those who strive for such a state should know that their mission is not yet accomplished, those who object should know that they can save their panic for later). And still we have a lot of articles about one subject, even if we keep the "outline" article. DrorK (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thee arguments were made in the AfD and rejected as in any way affecting the need for the article. If you insist on revisiting that discussion, I would suggest you open a renaming proposal at Outline of Palestine where it can take place. Tiamut^talk 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is to not merge. But I agree it needs a rewrite, and a rename proposal has been suggested. I think this discussion needs continuing at it's own talk page, not here, and same with all the other articles mentioned. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you may transfer this discussion to the appropriate place. BTW, I am not aware of an AfD debate about the subject, but in any case, there was a consensus that "State of Palestine" should direct to the article "Proposals for a Palestinian state" and then someone just ignored that consensus and wrote a (problematic) article with that title, so apparently no decision is permanent in WP. DrorK (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable redirect, I'll set up a discussion at Talk:Outline of Palestine Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I remove the merge tags? Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Crisis of 1967 - US involvement

I have removed the statement "The US believes in territorial integrity, withdrawal, and recognition of secure boundaries." from what is currently paragraph 3 in this section based on several factors: Firstly, the use of present tense is ambiguous (is this supposed to be a quote from a contemporary source, or it it supposed to refer to the present day?); secondly, at least at first glance it appears to be editorial opinion; thirdly, it's worded as a blanket statement that is so broad as to probably be factually wrong (it may be correct in reference to this particular issue, but that's not self-evident). If someone really believes it should be there, let me suggest As of 2010, the official position of the US government was that blah blah blah blah (insert source) or Mr. XYZ of the US State Department stated in 1967 that "(insert quote)".(insert source). It's possible that the sentence was a quotation from the reference cited for the entire paragraph, but if so that's not at all clear from the wording. 68.105.71.75 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge (Occupied Palestinian Territory)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

reviewing the merge proposal will respond with my take at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

WP:POVFORK. Enough said. Breein1007 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Please see the discussion at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory. This article, by the way, seems to be WP:OR, as none of the sources cited actually define what the "Palestinian territories" are, and the sources I have seen use a different definition than the one given here. Tiamut^talk 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Breein1007. This forking of articles about the Palestinian Territories has become a trend. DrorK (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The link in the template might need to be changed to the other discussion since there are certainly similarities and it appears to have more feedback. So with whatever the proposal is, Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be an independent article and should instead be merged into Palestinian Territories. The info that cannot be merged directly into existing subsections (which to me appears to be an unlikely scenario) might be better off with a subsection. This isn't solely based on neutrality concerns. It will be easier to navigate and the reader will more likely see the information. "Occupied" might have some good sourcing but it is a good candidate for a POV check (or at the very least someone with a kneejerk reaction wold say) which means that effort should be brought over to this article.Cptnono (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This does seem like WP:POVFORK; however, I think conceptually there is enough differnce between the two to justify two seperate articles. Note that Occupied France and France have seperate articles. Is that wrong? NickCT (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean German occupation of France during World War II. How is that the same? Breein1007 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it time to merge this article. It is clearly a POV-forking. DrorK (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could have a string of articles under the heading of "Territories occupied by Israel"..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge. Int21h (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as a POV fork. It covers the exact same topic, however. Merge.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per my reading of consensus at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory, I've gone ahead and merged the two articles. I do not claim that my merge is perfect or ideal and fully expect others to improve upon it. But, as the request was raised on my talk page, I suspect that if left alone, that the two articles would continue to exist with everybody worried about making a bold edit on this controversial subject.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality of life

Massive synthesis/POV push inviting the reader to consider the merits of being occupied by Israel. Never mind the billions in international aid, the section links the rise of Palestinian living standards with military occupation while managing to say nothing about the situation since 1990 which just might be germane to the article. Information is from a few questionable sources and the legit sources don't include all of the information presented. Sol (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Synth? Information comes from reliable sources and is unchallenged. The UNRWA didn't show up in 1967, it had been around for more than 20 years. The international aid didn't start flowing until the peace process began. "Question sources" vs. "legit sources?" What does this mean? The information is very specific. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Natalia Zawidowski does not cite any reliable sources, has no credentials as a demographer, and Scoop News only credits her as the author of six columns or editorials:

• Blame It On The Occupation
• Zionism & Racism
• The True Arafat
• Trust The Claims Of A Massacre? Think Again
• Terrorism As A Way Of Life
• The 'United Nations', United Against Whom?

A quick plagarism check with Dupli Checker indicates that the information was copied verbatim from the now-defunct meimad.org Hasbara Central blog. For example Middle East Facts sources it to http://www.meimad.org/default.asp?id=8&ACT=5&content=128&mnu=8 You can now consider this source as challenged. See the new WP:RSN discussion on Natalia Zawidowski [4]

In 2003 the Jewish Chronicle reported that Zawidowski was a student at London Metropolitan University and that she co-founded an anti-terrorism website with the "aim to educate people about different types of terrorism, particularly the raising of children to be suicide bombers." [5]

The World Bank report contradicts many of Zawidowski's assumptions regarding the quality of life. See [6] and [7] harlan (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information is not predicated on the scoop cite. Health, UNICIF, and JVL. I don't have time to sort through a 116 page world bank report. Which claim specifically is being disputed by the World Bank? The Palestinian standard of living isn't much of a debate. United Nations has published plenty of reports placing the life expectancy and standard of living greater than numerous Arab nations. I think Harlan just likes following me around, he is my special Wikipedia stalker. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside, for the moment, the verbatim copy/pasted partisan rhetoric from the questionable and copyrighted sources ("Israel rule"?), the factual issues (pre-67 literacy isn't mentioned in the sources given for it), and contrasting certain facts in a novel manner (literacy) it's still POV pushing with no real relation to the article's topic. WP:COATRACK The number debunking doesn't help. Sol (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more explicit. "POV pushing" (the gist of your complaint) is not very challenging. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So we are agreeing that the sub-section isn't really related to the topic? =) The POV push is that occupation by Israel is/was a good thing and people are just kvetching and biting the hand that feeds them and that the Palestinians themselves aren't worth discussing except in the greater context of Arab-Israeli relations. It's presenting information about the Palestinian occupiers, not about the Palestinians. It's presented in the same "Arab vs. Israel" format of the original (and questionably accurate)source. It's not talking about present conditions, trends in quality of life, other factors influencing living conditions and metrics or any timely information. Israel just might have dumped tons of cash into fixing up the territories as a mitzvah; that's important information and worth including but this isn't the article for it. Sol (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the section does not say the "occupation was a good thing." It is saying when Israel captured the West Bank/Gaza the standard of living of the Arabs occupied rose substantially as a result of Israeli policy - building hospitals, universities, eradicating disease, etc. Israel did not dump a "ton of cash into fixing the territories." The sources speak for themselves. If anything, the section could be expanded. Talk about Israel moving Palestinians out of refugee camps in Gaza and building homes (condemned by the UN), training Palestinian farmers in advanced agriculture techniques, etc. This isn't controversial material. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't speak for themselves. The bulk of the section comes from blatantly partisan articles in obscure publications that give no sources and, according to what Harlan found, aren't right. This isn't the topic. This is WP:COATRACK writ large. There is no policy reason to keep this material even if it didn't plagiarize phrases from the authors. Sol (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What partisan articles and obscure publications? Harlan is complaining about the Scoop article written by Zawidowski. I looked through the world bank PDF and couldn't find what Harlan was referring too. The sources do speak for themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikifan if you think that I followed you to this article, I suggest that you check the article and talk page revision history again. Mitchell G. Bard has degrees in political science and economics, but he is not an authority on public health. The analysis provided by the authors of the Lancet article completely contradicts Bard. So I'm going to insist that any narrative analysis come from Lancet or UNICEF. Neither Lancet nor UNICEF attribute improvements in the statistical indicators to the Israeli occupation or any Israeli policy. Both reports are in-line with fact finding missions which report that Israel has created a humanitarian crisis in the territories. They report stunted growth and other permanent developmental problems in an inordinate percentage of the children reflecting chronic malnutrition. Lancet also describes extreme emotional problems and clinical depression in the general population.

The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories:

Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.

The story in the field of education is the same. Palestinians built their own institutions of higher learning without any Israeli funding - and despite Israeli attempts to close them dowm. See The Palestinian uprising: a war by other means, by F. Robert Hunter, page 22 [8] I'll be happy to add the World Bank information on curfews and closures, health, poverty, and subsistence poverty. The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case. harlan (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source. As for scoop.ac.nz, that doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Why not take it to WP:RSN? Zero^talk 06:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Zero See the WP:RSN discussion from yesterday on Natalia Zawidowski (scoop.ac.nz) [9] There is no editorial oversight of the content, so it amounts to self-publication. harlan (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy is increasing almost everywhere and infant mortality is decreasing almost everywhere. It is extremely misleading to just report that some indicators were better after 1967 than before. They were also better in Jordan and Egypt, and would have gotten better in WB/Gaza without the occupation too. It would be more sensible to compare WB/Gaza to other populations during the same time period, such as Egypt, Jordan and Israeli Arabs. Zero^talk 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you are misrepresenting the Lancet survey, and your rant isn't helping the discussion. The lancet survey is very explicit about how Palestinians see themselves in terms of quality of life. The "life-satisfaction" measurements are non-scientific and shouldn't be considered reliable in this case. POV claims:

• Palestinians are people who were never safe,95 even before the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The trauma of the 1948 nakba—the dispossession and dispersion of Palestinians—is imprinted in the collective consciousness to this day. (pg 854) The hyperbole doesn't exactly scream neutrality.

For example, the "quality of life" stats were pulled from the "Palestinian Quality of Life Study" using the "Palestinian life quality dataset. (pg 842)" So really, we don't how this information is being gathered and what standards are being used. Palestinian officials are notorious for fudging stats on population, humanitarian aid, and economic policy. Lancet is a rock-star journal but we have to look at what is being cited.

• The lancet surveys makes political claims and inferences, contrary to human rights assessments (i.e, buzzwords such as colonization, etc..).

And yet...

• Lancet survey confirms higher life expectancy than Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon (pg 840).

More facts:

• The prevalence of HIV/AIDS is very low, and the population is deemed

free of poliomyelitis, as judged by WHO criteria. Communicable diseases of childhood have already been mostly controlled with eff ective immunisation programmes. Standards of health, literacy, and education are generally higher in the occupied Palestinian territory than in several Arab countries, but substantially lower than in Israel (table 1) pg 842.

The lancet study says nothing about hospitals built by Israel or confirms or denies trends regarding Israel's presence in the West Bank/Gaza and improvements in quality of life. The JVL source on the other hand is very explicit and clear. Claiming it is "junky unreliable load of propaganda" is dubious at best. The lancet survey is far more questionable because it relies almost exclusively on unsubstantiated Palestinian complaints. Standard of living is defined by very clear parameters: Life expectancy, infant mortality, social-mobility, and per-capita income. But the authors invent their own rubric to meet a pre-determined agenda. The study puts a lot of attention on recent effects and largely avoids trends between 1967-1980s when violence was sparse. As an occupying power of course Israel had influence over the lives of Palestinians so it is nonsense to say the improved system of health care, construction of universities (banned by Jordan), and increased quality of life was simply part of the general increases in living among Arab nations.

Remember, the lancet survey was authored almost entirely by Palestinian officials and experts.

And Harlan, the claim that the Palestinians have the "the worst quality of life of any country" is patently false. I don't see that in the Lancet report. I'm guessing that is just you SOAPING as usual. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan Bard and Tom Gross/Efraim Karsh are certainly making political claims and inferences that represent an unscientific minority viewpoint, i.e. Commentary said Karsh was challenging the prevailing views held in the US and EU. Bard merely says "universities were opened", but he does not say by whom. There is no reason to credit Israel with building hospitals or schools that were really foreign donor-funded projects. The Quality of Life subsection was an editorial that endorsed a minority view, and it did not mention the prevailing viewpoint at all.

The UNICEF website says "Today, over 10,000 children start their school year in tents, caravans, or tin shacks throughout Area C, and at least one third of government schools in these areas have poor and inadequate water and sanitation facilities. Constant pressure and harassment by settlers and Israeli military forces experienced by so many school children, as well as forced displacements and house demolitions, result in psychological distress. “We are deeply concerned that many children will suffer from devastating long-term consequences and lost educational chances” [10]

The Lancet authors reviewed the 1948 expulsions and the conditions in the refugee camps and said that "Palestinian identity has been reinforced through resistance to dispossession and extinction."

From page 842-843 of the Lancet article "To assess the quality of life in Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territory, the WHO quality of life-Bref was used in a 2005 survey, containing a representative sample of adults from the general population, after addition of some questions relevant to the Palestinian context. Life quality in the occupied Palestinian territory proved lower than that in almost all other countries included in the WHO study.

"Furthermore, the study showed that most responders had high levels of fear; threats to personal safety, safety of their families, and their ability to support their families; loss of incomes, homes, and land; and fear about their future and the future of their families. Feelings in the population include hamm — a local Arabic term that combines different feelings, such as the heaviness of worry, anxiety, grief, sorrow, and distress — frustration, incapacitation, and anger. Feelings of deprivation and suffering were also high. Most people reported being negatively affected by constant conflict and military occupation, closures and siege (including the separation wall), and inter-Palestinian violence.

"In a study based on 3415 adolescents of the Ramallah district, Palestinian students reported the lowest life-satisfaction scores compared with 35 other countries. Collective exposure to violence was associated with negative mental health. After adjustment for sex, residence, and other measures of exposure to violent events, exposure to humiliation was also significantly associated with increased subjective health complaints. Such subjective data should be interpreted with caution because subjective measures can be complicated by people understanding and responding to questions in different ways. However, self-rating of health measures offer “something more — and something less — than objective medical ratings”, especially because of the incomplete understanding of what true health is. In May, 2002, in a survey of a representative sample of households in the five West Bank towns invaded by the Israeli military during March and April, 2002, responders reported high psychological distress at home, including sleeplessness, uncontrollable fear and shaking episodes, fatigue, depression, and hopelessness, and enuresis and uncontrolled crying episodes in children. Distress was highest in Ramallah (93%), Tulkarm (91%), Jenin (89%), Bethlehem (87%), and Nablus (71%). It was also associated with the imposition of curfews, bombing and shooting, loss of home, displacement, degradation of quality of housing, including interruption of utilities such as electricity and water, and the consequent destruction of food supplies, shortages of food and cash, and no access to medical services."

That isn't me soapboxing that is the analysis from the source you cited. harlan (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the surveys created by Palestinian rights groups. The section has nothing to do with the surveys. The self-reporting stats are totally non-scientific and cannot be considered reliable. Nigeria is supposedly the happiest country on the planet based on a survey, but it is still a cesspool.

Standard of living is defined by: Life expectancy, infant mortality, per-capita income, education, literacy, and social-mobility. These are universal standards. Testimonies taken by Palestinian academics can't be taken seriously. The Lancet study says nothing about trends, Israeli cooperation with Palestinian health care system, educational system, etc. I mean come'on, the West Bank has one of the fastest growing economies on the planet. Surveys don't matter, not in this context. Empirical data matters. The lancet survey does confirm the standard of living numbers, so does UNICIF, the UN, and Palestinian Authority.

The original data in the section is sound and not disputed by the World Bank or Lancet. The Israeli government continues to work with the Palestinian Authority and the state is one of their leading trading partners. And anyways, you are totally ignoring the other sources that support the information. Do you dispute the fact that the Israeli civil authority help build Palestinian hospitals? That Israel state eradicated malaria, polio, whooping cough, and dozens of other diseases that were endemic under the 20 year Arab occupation? Take a look at the Palestinians in Lebanon, they have one of the lowest standards of livings in the Arab world. Not even in the same league as the Palestinians in the West Bank/Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan you cannot cherry-pick data from studies for use in this article and exclude the analysis of the authors of those studies. There isn't the slightest possibility that you are going to add a quality of life subsection that excludes the published opinions of the inhabitants or the prevailing views contained in reliable mainstream and official sources. The fact that a political scientist and a military historian credit Israel with eradicating communicable diseases is hardly notable or reliable information.

The US government reported that as of January 1960 malaria eradication programs were operating in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria. The same report said that nearly all the population of Jordan that was at risk was already under protection by 1961 and that the eradication goal had been set for 1965. See Tropical health; a report on a study of needs and resources, by The National Research Council (U.S.). Division of Medical Sciences [11] The same book reports that reliable data for diseases like whooping cough and typhus were almost non-existent or that only very incomplete data was available from the countries of Southwest Asia. [12] [13] It also reported that in many areas of Southwest Asia, aside from Israel, polio was of little concern. It was uncommonly reported in Lebanon and Syria and caused little morbidity in Cyprus. [14] harlan (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, self-reported quality of life surveys don't matter. Like I said dozens of times, standard of living is defined by: Life expectancy, infant mortality, education, social mobility, etc. Yes, the Palestinians are special so they get their own unique aid agency and their PA-controlled universities invent rubrics that say Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet. You are the one cherry-picking data and fail to recognize the fact that as an occupying authority Israel industrialized the Palestinian territories. This isn't controversial. Israel's occupation of the Palestinians was far more intense and intertwined than the Arab's, and this is proven by Israel's construction of hospitals, schools, and moving Palestinians out of refugee camps into cities - which was recognized and condemned by the United Nations. Your sources still don't disprove the information in the original section. JVL is a reliable source and Bard is hell of a lot more reliable than no-name Palestinian academics on the Palestinian National Authority payroll. This source cites Palestinian leaders themselves. It is explicit and fair. The Lancet survey has some interesting stats but most of the report is novel at best. Stories of the Nakba and starving Palestinians don't paint a neutral picture. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan including the published views of all the parties to the conflict and fairly representing them is not optional. Please re-read WP:ARBPIA. It says Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. I don't want to hear any more about your unpublished synthesis.

You have been advised by three other editors that the material from Hasbara Central/scoop.nz is a flagrant piece of WP:COATRACK propaganda, and that you are POV-pushing by trying to include it in this article. You have not made any attempt to include material that represents the majority viewpoint or the views of the indigenous population that I've brought to your attention. Right at the moment, Israeli officials are struggling to stay one step ahead of the law on a laundry list of charges including persecution, collective punishment, and crimes against humanity. Those charges are based upon many credible published reports that say "quality of life" is abysmal thanks to the Israeli occupation. If you insist, I'll be happy to open a thread at WP:RSN and see if anyone thinks JVL and Efraim Karsh are reliable sources on the issue of public health or if anyone thinks the peer review process at Lancet has been corrupted by the Palestinians. harlan (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.

Yes, I agree Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encylopedia. There is nothing non-neutral about accurately describing Israel's relationship in the occupied territories between 1967-2010. I'll concede the scoop article might be questionable but you continue to ignore the sources that don't reflect your point of view. Buzzwords like "propaganda" don't help the discussion.

I've been extremely explicit in my posts, while you continue to rant and rave independent of facts. Here, a sample of your neutral, polite, cordial SOAP boxing.

The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories

This is false. The lancet survey does not say the Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country and nor does the WHO survey.

The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case

This is also false and dishonest. There is no "majority viewpoint" other than the sources you cherry-pick. UN, UNICIF, and international aid agencies continue to state that the Palestinians, in spite of living under Israeli occupation, experience a much higher standard of living than many Arab nations. It seems you deny the culpability of the UNRWA, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon - states and organizations that have influence over the quality life of Palestinian refugees. Your passing reference of the ICJ finding is funny, considering it was non-binding. Notice your capitlization of "Wall." The Wall is 94% fence, but I guess subtle bias is okay on wikipedia.

says Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. I don't want to hear any more about your unpublished synthesis.

I've provided numerous sources to back general knowledge that you dubiously condemn as propaganda and a minority POV. You are one promoting synth, injecting your own language into the talk discuss (indigenous population, settlements=genocide, etc..)

Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source

Wrong again. JVL is a reliable source and the myths/facts section contains a quite few telling excerpts from certified-statements by Palestinian officials, UN employees, and experts. I know you don't like it Harlan because it doesn't reduce the conflict from a neo-colonialist perspective.

There is no reason to credit Israel with building hospitals or schools that were really foreign donor-funded projects. The Quality of Life subsection was an editorial that endorsed a minority view, and it did not mention the prevailing viewpoint at all.

False. Israel built hospitals with Israeli-tax payers dollars and taxes collected from the the Palestinian community. For 20 years, when Israel had zero influence over the lives of Palestinian refugees, no universities were built, very few hospitals were maintained, and disease, poverty, etc...was sky-high. The Arab occupiers were condemned zero times by the UN for their policies. The Quality of Life section was not an editorial, it contains serious hard-facts with precise percentages.

Those charges are based upon many credible published reports that say "quality of life" is abysmal thanks to the Israeli occupation. If you insist, I'll be happy to open a thread at WP:RSN and see if anyone thinks JVL and Efraim Karsh are reliable sources on the issue of public health or if anyone thinks the peer review process at Lancet has been corrupted by the Palestinians

Harlan, I'll ask you one more time: Please find me in the Lancet study anything that remotely discuses Israel's physical relationship between the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza. Stats about hospitals, diseases, trends in standards of livings, etc. I'll tell you - the lancet survey confirms educational stats, life expectancy stats, infant mortality stats, etc. And the statistics rank higher than Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

I'm not disputing the self-reported quality of life surveys. 1,000+ cherry-picked anonymous Palestinians interviewed according to a non-scientific rubric *gasp* shows Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet. This doesn't matter. If it makes you feel any better we could add something like, "Surveys collected by Palestinian universities x, y, and z claim Palestinians age x-z have low levels of happiness, blah blah. But the Lancet does not disprove the JVL source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

UN places Palestine ahead of Indonesia and below Turkmenistan in terms of Human Development. Life expectancy, education, and overall health is the top 30-25% of the world's states.

So language such as "worst quality of life on the planet" is hard to take seriously, especially when compared to nations such as Congo or Somalia where citizens are raped and murdered on a regular basis. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, this isn't an article about Lebanon, Congo, or Somalia. I'm not suggesting that quality of life surveys are relevant to this article, you are the one who added the Lancet citation and then disputed the conclusions contained in it. You are still attempting to make WP:Synth claims about quality of life on the basis of statistical indicators of the standard of living. The former Yugoslavia had an adequate standard of living, but the quality of life there became completely intolerable. Many reliable sources say that Israel is running the largest open air prisons on the planet,[15] where Palestinians are forced to live in isolated enclaves behind concrete and barb wire fences backed-up by remote controlled gun towers deployed nearby and frequent military incursions.

Israel destroyed 28,000 homes in Gaza and, for almost two years, has blockaded humanitarian aid shipments and supplies of the necessary building materials needed to repair housing and public infrastructure. The UN and the EU both consider that situation, including the blockade and restrictions on freedom of movement, an illegal form of collective punishment and a crime against humanity. If you want to add a quality of life section, then all of that needs to be mentioned. harlan (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. You refuse to respond to my edit.

What statement in the Lancet report remotely conflicts with the original data in the section? The lancet survey confirms life expectancy, per capita income, social mobility, and infant mortality as indicators of quality of life. Controlled surveys taken by no-name Palestinian academics employed by the Palestinian Authority are non-scientific. That is what you continue to base your fantasy image of the Palestine. You accused me of promoting non-neutral material, but it is you Harlan that continues to force fringe, if not outright false information couched beneath "reliable sources." I've asked you DOZENS of times to find me any statement in the Lancet survey that disagrees with the original section. Please, point to me the study on trends, Israel's relationship with Palestinian universities, hospitals, army, agriculture, etc. The results are stunning, and you are trying to censor it by invoking obscene hyperbole and demonization rhetoric. I demonstrated quite clearly your history of making false statements and false claims. Misrepresenting the Lancet survey by saying it concluded that the Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet (false), and dismissing reports by the UN, UNDP, and international rights groups that show time and time against the standard of living for Palestinians is not comparable to a prison or genocide.

I've provided decent sources, the JVL link is reliable and I will cite it in future edits. Writing it off as propaganda is offensive.

I'll ask one more time Harlan, can you discredit the fact that Israel helped construct hospitals, universities, trained Palestinian doctors and farmers, industrialized water resources and systems, eh? The Lancet report says NOTHING about that. All it talks about is current events, mixed in with POV-stories of a Palestinian Nakba and perpetual suffering under the thumb of Israel, with no mention of Hamas' control over Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing here to answer. In 2002 Efriam Karsh wrote a man bites dog article that challenged the prevailing mainstream view and entitled it "What Occupation?". That was long before the Gaza blockade or the decision in the Wall case that confirmed the existence of the occupation, and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. According to his own publicity, Karsh is a representative of the right-wing Zionist political movement. The responsible treaty body reports on the Second Intifada in 2000 had already indicated "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity." See Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1, 19 October 2000 [16] FYI, Francis Boyle recommended that a genocide case be brought in the ICJ against Israel.[17] Boyle represented Bosnia and Herzegovina in the ICJ genocide cases involving those former Yugoslavian states.

The World Bank, Lancet, and UNICEF do not credit the Israeli occupation with improving either the quality of life or standard of living in the Palestinian territories. That is an inference you are drawing from some statistical indicators. All of them do report on the detrimental effects of the Israeli occupation. You are conveniently ignoring the on-going tangible contributions made by the indigenous Jordanian government during the occupation until 1988. For example, the US government reports that after the Rabat summit the government of Jordan continued to pay the salaries of 6,000 civil servants and teachers in the West Bank which (at that time) amounted to about US$40 million a year.[18]

I provided another source above which explained that the Palestinians already had colleges and that Israel licensed them as universities. That source explained that Israel didn't build or provide funding for any of them and that it even tried to close them down. I provided another reliable source which says Jordanian health officials (including the West Bank Palestinians) had implemented their own eradication program years before the Israeli occupation and had already protected the at risk population from malaria in 1961. The same US government report said polio wasn't endemic in the region and that recent immigrants to Israel were the only source of concern in the region. It also said that there were no reliable WHO figures for the other diseases you mentioned. Bard is tendentiously citing unreliable estimates for the previous decades as if they were empirical facts. He gives Israel credit for improvements made by the Jordanians, Palestinians, and foreign donors before the occupation began, while completely ignoring the present humanitarian crisis reported by the World Bank, Lancet, and UNICEF. For example, the Lancet article points out that one in ten children now have permanent disabilities and health problems resulting from chronic malnutrition and that those problems are associated with shortened life expectancy.

I responded to your edit by deleting it and pointing out that the Lancet article said

Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.

Jordan and Egypt were members of the World Health Organization. After the Rabat summit and the dissolution of the union with Jordan, Israel actively campaigned to block Palestine's membership in the WHO. The responsible UN treaty bodies have routinely reported that Israel has violated the Palestinians right to work, to health, to education, and access to adequate supplies of food, safe drinking water, and shelter. The ICJ advisory opinion contained the same conclusions in its findings of fact (see paras 132-134 [19]. 80 per cent of the population of Gaza is totally dependent on international food aid and there is over 40 percent unemployment. Navi Pillay and Karl Hudson-Phillips are former judges with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Both of them have reported that Israel's blockade of Gaza is an illegal form of collective punishment and that states cannot use hunger or starvation as methods of warfare. Karsh and Bard are obviously not comparing that or the situation in the West Bank to the quality of life in other Arab countries. harlan (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So I'm going to look around for stuff that talks about the quality of life in the OPT and put it in the article. The original objections haven't been addressed; non-RS narrative of how much better off the territories are being occupied. This still has no information in regards to current Palestinian standards of living. It's like leading the Economy of Israel section with a long discussion about how good billions of US dollars have been for the country over the past decades. Sol (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh Sigh Sigh.

Harlan, you still have failed to address serious issues and continue to dance around.

I pretty much demolished your SOAPing and proved you continue to make subtle false accusations couched beneath your arguments, and then accuse others of not paying attention. I paid attention.

• " That was long before the Gaza blockade or the decision in the Wall case that confirmed the existence of the occupation, and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. According to his own publicity, Karsh is a representative of the right-wing Zionist political movement.."

Again Harlan, again again you insert your own fringe POV with buzzwords such as "Wall" (94% FENCE).

• I don't dispute the findings of the second intifada. The second intifada was a war, and wars killed people and cause suffering. The section in question talks about historical trends - 1967-today, before the blockade. Before the curfews, check points, before Israel retook Area A and C from Palestinian administration.

• "The World Bank, Lancet, and UNICEF do not credit the Israeli occupation with improving either the quality of life or standard of living in the Palestinian territories." The world bank, lancet, and UNICEF say actually nothing about the trends and quality of life in the Palestinian territories from an historical perspective.

• "at is an inference you are drawing from some statistical indicators. All of them do report on the detrimental effects of the Israeli occupation. You are conveniently ignoring the on-going tangible contributions made by the indigenous Jordanian government during the occupation until 1988. For example, the US government reports that after the Rabat summit the government of Jordan continued to pay the salaries of 6,000 civil servants and teachers in the West Bank which (at that time) amounted to about US$40 million a year."

• More ignorance. The money comes from the UNRWA, which comes from the United States and Europe. Jordan contributes next to nothing. The money is handed over to Jordan which administers the refugee camps in main Jordan. But again, 40% of all Palestinian refugees have Jordanian citizenship, and all Palestinian refugees in Jordan are refuses aside from ~100,000 according to the UNRWA. So again, leaving out important facts doesn't help your argument. "Indigenous." Lol. Jordan was a British proxy, the Hashemites are a minority people ruling over a majority. But that's just my opinion.

Finally, reliable sources. I love how you accuse me of using "propaganda" sources (JVL is a reliable source), but then...

• Israel is committing genocide.

• Geez, is that unreliable source I smell? Yes, I believe it is.

Let me repeat myself:

The section has:

A) Nothing to do with recentism. We're talking about events between 1967-today, not recent casualties from wars instigated by the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian life improved exponentially when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem. Palestinians had access to hospitals in Israel, up until 2009 when the PLO stopped paying. Israel did build hospitals in Gaza as well as universities.

B) None of the sources you provided dispute the findings of JVL. Palestinians living under ‘occupation’ have the lowest standard of living in the Middle East.” Your agenda is that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza destroyed, not improved the quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. You refer to recent events, the second intifada - the Gaza blockade, and other closures.

I don't dispute any of that Harlan. But it is simply a red herring. The Palestinians still have a higher standard of living than most Arab nations, including Egypt. And up until the second intifada hundreds of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel legally, while no Palestinians worked in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt (or very few at least).

As an occupying power Israel had serious influence and control over Palestinians and the government had no reason to continue the plight. This is why is tried to remove Palestinians out of refugee camps and expand social services. For 20 years the international aid agencies were largely absence, or barely noticeable, as the Arabs had total control. Only after 1967 did the situation start to improve. Had the Six Day War not happened, the Palestinians would be living under the same conditions as those in Lebanon and Egypt.

Again, I don't dispute the arguments from individuals in the UN or UNRWA. But it is truly laughable to deny Israel's relationship with the Palestinian authority since it is the only thing preventing the Palestinian territories from imploding. And we can't ignore the series of treaties sighed between Palestinian and Israelis - Cairo agreements, Oslo, Road Map, etc. All imperfect, but gave Palestinians more control than they had under Arab occupiers.

Do you want to continue this debate? You refuse to acknowledge basic facts and instead go on rants about the Gaza blockade. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the conversation is now aboutbut if three of four editors agree that sources are not reliable and object to the content shouldn't we, just maybe, not put it back in? Sol (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I was simply giving you a free link to Boyle's comments about filing an ICJ lawsuit against Israel for genocide. He also wrote about that in Boyle, Francis Anthony, "Palestine, Palestinians, and international law", Clarity Press, 2003, ISBN 093286337X, page 160-163. Boyle has two earned PhDs in Law and Political Science from Harvard, and has participated in genocide cases in the ICJ and as counsel to parties involved in the UN Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He is a reliable source on the subject of the crime of genocide and the ICJ.

I'm not ignoring the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authorities. The agreements between them placed 93 percent of the population under the direct administration of the PNA, not Israel. After the Oslo Agreements expired in 2000, the representatives of the Palestinian Authority accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of criminal acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002. They also co‑sponsored the earlier draft resolution requesting the ICJ advisory opinion.[20] In that case they submitted written statements and oral pleadings which said that the situation in the territories violated the provisions of the Rome Statute and met the Court's definition of apartheid (See pages 170 and 261 of 838). The written statement described the process of Bantusanization and the general violation of human rights laws and international humanitarian laws. See Chapter 10, pages 235-268). [21]

I've already mentioned that the Court found that Israel had created isolated enclaves without access to adequate supplies of food and water and had violated the Palestinians rights to work, to health, to education, and an adequate standard of living. From the outset I've stated that WP:ARBPIA requires those views be included in any quality of life subsection. You also cannot cite Lancet and UNICEF statistics while excluding the accompanying analysis. harlan (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I'm not disputing any of that. Really, I agree with you. Don't you understand this? However I do find it quite odd you accuse me of citing unreliable sources when you in fact link blatantly unreliable references again and again. I really wish you would look at my comments and respond to them, nothing I've suggested is remotely controversial. For 40 years Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza and for 40 years the Palestinians had to deal with Israeli resources whether they liked it or not. Energy, education, health, etc...all came with Israel's presence. Even today the Palestinians are highly dependent on Israel for resources as the Arab states have practically boycotted their economy monetarily-speaking. The facts on the ground are less intense as you dubiously describe, but I understand the buzzwords and will accept them as long as you accept my fair edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should a section about quality of life in the present day OPT be injected with a pro-Israeli narrative about the correlation between occupation and quality of life metrics in decades past? Quality of life did improve during that time period; the reasons are multi-faceted. Using an op-ed from a less than neutral magazine (with no sources) and JVL has already been challenged as an RS problem by three editors. Factor in that some of the assertions are prima facie impossibilities (eradicating malaria via inoculation is amazing given that the vaccines are still in trials) and lovingly cherry-picked (you'll be interested to learn that the increase in life span and decrease in mortality occurred in most Arab countries in the region during the same time, even ones not invaded) and there just isn't any reason to keep including this. Sol (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Sol. This is an obvious case of WP:COATRACK. Wikifan made no effort to incorporate opposing viewpoints even after they were brought to his attention. #orse still, he is using the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to recite a very controversial POV.

Bard's 2006 article only cited a UNDP-sponsored 2004 Global Human Development Report. It doesn't compare the Israeli occupation with the pre-1967 period at all, much less mention the opening of any universities & etc. This is nothing more than a self-published Op-Ed piece by a former AIPAC apparatchik. The Palestinian territories were only included in the global report for the first time in 2003, and the entries for most metrics were blank. See the explanation about "Data Gaps" on page 192 [22]. For example, there was no global ranking supplied on the Human Poverty Index HPI-1 report for the Palestinian territories in 2004. See page 148 [23]. The 2009 report that Wikifan linked to above indicates that Palestinians are much worse off than their Arab brethren. Palestine was ranked 24th worldwide on the Human Poverty Index; 36th for individuals not expected to reach age 40; 53rd in adult illiteracy rate; 72nd for individuals not using treated water sources; and 10th worldwide for stunted or underweight children.[24]

Karsh's editorial in Commentary Magazine mentions lots of unsourced statistics for years in which the WHO, UNICEF, and the World Bank say there are no sources of reliable data available. In other cases at WP:RSN Commentary Magazine editorials have not been considered reliable or fact-checked sources, e.g. a Nelson Mandela quote about Israeli apartheid appeared in several sources, including a Commentary editorial [25]. In any event, Karsh says everything that he described "took place against the backdrop of Israel's hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres." Wikifan sourced the Karsh article to the Mideast Dispatch Archive, which by definition represents a minority view. The operator says "This email list was begun in the late 90s to correct what I saw as a serious and growing imbalance in the way the Middle East was being covered by many, indeed most, Western journalists." [26] . harlan (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What Karsh editorial? I'm not the one posted links from fringe radical, Hamas-activist sites. You totally misrepresents the UNDP link.

• The Palestinians are #66 in life expectancy at birth (73.3). Ahead of Hungary and below Saint Lucia. Nowhere does it so not likely to reach 40, that is mad. Palestine is not Africa.

• Palestinians are 53rd in Adult literacy, at 93.3. This ahead of every Arab nation with the exception of oil-rich Kuwait. # 2.

• Your links say nothing about untreated water, but according to Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories and overwhelmingly majority of Palestinians have access to "improved" (drinkable) water. Remember, the Palestinian leadership have their own water authority. And Palestinians have to pay much less for water than regular Israelis.

• I don't know why you're so obsessed with attacking Karsh, but I assume it is simply a red-herring to cover up your total lack of substance. None of the links you have provided disprove trends, and there is a direct relationship between Israel's occupation and Palestinian quality of life. All we need to do is compare the 20 year Arab occupation and 20 year Israeli occupation, observe the positives and negatives, see the trends. Sources say Israeli developed water treatment plants, constructed universities, provided access to hospitals, trained Palestinian doctors. Hell, Israel even tried to move Palestinian refugees out of their cesspool into real homes but the UN condemned it. How dare Israel try to move their enemies out of poverty!

So really, the onus is on you. I'm expecting another lengthy reply attacking my character and accusing me of promoting Hasbara. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Human Development Report employs two different systems for ranking developed and developing countries. No direct comparisons between developed and developing countries are possible. The Palestinian Territories rank high, 24th out of 135 other countries, on the HPI-1 poverty index and 10th highest for stunted or underweight children. FYI the latter statistic was contained in both the Lancet and UNICEF studies you cited and I've pointed out that Lancet says that is a marker for permanent disabilities and shortened life expectancy.

The Human Poverty Index HPI-1 is a key measure of the standard of living. The HDR says that the Human Poverty Index measures (a) severe deprivation in health by the proportion of people who are not expected to survive to age 40; (b) the adult illiteracy rate; and (c) a decent standard of living as measured by the unweighted average of people not using an improved water source and the proportion of children under age 5 who are underweight for their age. Try scrolling down the page and reading the report that you keep citing: [27] harlan (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay Harlan, do you disagree with anything I wrote above? All I did was go through the sources you provided and copied and pasted the facts mentioned. You must have misread the sources because it said absolutely nothing about water, sanitation, and claims that Palestinians are less like to reach age 40. How absurd, considering the Palestinians have a higher life expectancy than 90% of the world's population, including many Arab nations. I don't dispute the effects of the second intifada, but it is dubious to deny the realities of Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel ruled and controlled Palestinian life for quite awhile and spent a considerable amount of time shaping infrastructure, land, and resources. The fact is the standard of living and per capita income rose significantly following the Six Day War as Palestinians could now access Jerusalem and work in Israel. Some even qualify for citizenship. I don't remember the exact statistics, but I think it was 1 in 3 or 5 Palestinian families worked for Israeli employers prior to the second intifada. Like I've said and proven numerous times, there are very specific and universal parameters for quality of life. The billions poured into the territories on an annual basis can't possibly lead to the kind of suffering you frequently describe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan's talking about this link you posted, table 2. And yes, Palestinian quality of life isn't like Medieval Europe level but I'm not sure what that has to do with including POV pushes or why magical malaria vaccine sources are ok. Sol (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I cite things that are reported by mainstream published sources. It isn't very difficult when so many sources are in agreement. For example, in the 2004 Wall case the Secretary General submitted a 1000 page dossier that reported on widespread unemployment and malnutrition. [28] Among other things, it reported that the Barrier had already separated 30 localities from health services, 22 from schools, 8 from primary water sources and 3 from electricity networks. It contained reports from rapporteurs on the resulting rise in water borne diseases and illnesses when Palestinians were forced to resort to unsafe or contaminated water supplies.

The 2004 Human Development Report that Bard cited [29] mentioned that:

• Movements for cultural domination are exclusionary and seek to impose their ideology on others. It said "The Jewish Gush Emunim, a militant settler group, aims to recreate Biblical Israel and has used violence to expel Palestinians." and that "Movements for cultural domination are supremacist and often predatory. They espouse an ideology that demonizes other identities to justify the creation of a “pure”, sacred and homogeneous homeland." See page 75
• States have resorted to torture, arguing that it is justified under certain circumstances. No matter how infrequent or moderate the use, there is always the danger of abuse when the law condones such actions. In 1987 an Israeli judicial commission recommended allowing “moderate physical pressure” in interrogations. See page 80

FYI, Kav LaOved has published a number of reports which say that Palestinian workers were exploited by the state of Israel [30], e.g. See "Israel Owes Billions of Shekels to Palestinian Workers [31]; the Jerusalem Post ‘State siphoned off Palestinian workers’ insurance money’ [32]; and Al Jezeerah 'Israel accused of 'tax theft' [33] harlan (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you're going off-topic. Yes, Palestinian workers are exploited and the security barrier has disrupted the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Okay, so what? What does this have to do with you constantly misrepresenting, if not outright making up facts to support a narrative that isn't connected with reality? I've showed with serious sources that Israel built up and developed much of today's Palestine infrastructure independent of the UN and aid organizations. And Israel's presence facilitated a much more comprehensive and efficient manner of moving aid into the territories as the Arab occupiers refused international meddling and handled all UNRWA payments on their own. Even today Israel is the one escorting aid and resources into Gaza while Egypt does nothing.

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove or discredit. It's a recognized fact that Israel implemented policies following the Six Day War that significantly reduced poverty and improved the standard of living and quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. If it weren't for Israel there would be independent Palestinian organizations to measure the "quality of life" according to the special, secret-rubric designed by native academics. I don't dispute the symptoms of the second intifada and recent conflicts, but you continue to ignore history and UN stats that disagree with your thesis. I'm still waiting for you to find me the source that says Palestinians are one of the most likely people to not reach age 40. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion now has no bearing on the removed sections. You are asking Harlan to refute statements he didn't make ("36th for individuals not expected to reach age 40" is not equal to "says Palestinians are one of the most likely people to not reach age 40.") and disputing information not in the article. Sol (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the source said absolutely nothing about age 40. Harlan has a habit of going off-topic when things don't go the way he planned. Overwhelmingly editors with his skilled and competent understanding of the Palestinians from the Palestinian POV. IMO I wouldn't be surprised if he was a lawyer in RL. But his ramblings have nothing to do with what I've been trying to demonstrate. Sol, do you want me to copy and paste my elementary-level bullet points, so you can see Harlan did not address a single one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I deleted a very poorly sourced WP:COATRACK/POV editorial from the article space because you did not include the opposing/majority viewpoints - even after they were brought to your attention here on the talk page. In the case of the Lancet article you did not include the views of the authors regarding Israel's neglect of the health care system in the Palestinian territories. There is no need to address your bullet lists until you take a stab at complying with Wikipedia:Five pillars. harlan (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, feel free to include the "opposing view." I enumerated quite clearly your editor bias and invoking seriously amusing buzzwords, as well as stating false information like Palestinians are 36th for not expecting to reach age 40, or Palestinians have the worst quality of life on the planet. Removing a cited paragraph because you think the fringe side is not fairly represents means you as an editor should balance it, not delete the information until the original editor can be more neutral (from your perspective). I went ahead and revised the section, removed the scoop refs and included the gist of the lancet study. What more do you want? Palestinians are starving to death and being subject to colonial genocide as you have claimed in numerous other talk discussions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan this article has existed without a quality of life or standard of living subsection for a number of years. I believe that information about the contents of the ICJ opinion has been removed from this article. You are apparently the only editor who thinks that this article needs to contain this information, or that Bard or Commentary Magazine editorials are relevant, reliable, fact-checked sources of information that can be presented in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia. BTW, which official or scholarly sources cite these claims by Bard and Karsh? The HDR report does not represent the official views or policies of the United Nations. According to its sponsor, UNDP, it is known for its controversial analysis. [34] The authors of the HDR admit it is based upon unreliable statistical sources, incomplete data, and that many UN member states are not even included.

The World Court considered the evidence from fact finding missions with legal mandates to report on economic and health conditions and about compliance with human rights conventions in these particular territories. The Court's findings of fact stated that Israel has been illegally depriving the Palestinians of their rights to self-determination, to work, to an education, to health, to adequate sources of food and water, to adequate housing, and the right to an adequate standard of living. The narrative accounts contained in the periodic WHO, UNICEF, World Bank reports and the multi-discipline multi-part peer-reviewed Lancet series [35] contain similar conclusions about conditions in the territories. harlan (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)